01/04/2005 Proyecto SAFE 1

Agroforestry Policy Recommendations for Europe

Brussels 30.3.05

Project ‘SAFE’

Index

• Obstacles to the introduction of agroforestry

• The 7 SAFE project policy issues

• The 4 SAFE project policy proposals

• About control schemes

• Conclusions

Obstacles perceived by Officials

• Officials are reluctant because:

– No EU Forest Policy (or mention of forestry in the Constitution)

– No knowledge that agroforestry is in the 1999 EU Forest ‘Strategy’

– Lack of experience of old or new agroforestry systems, but most countries cant bend grant rules for experimental trials

– Too complicated to work out the grant regimes (‘If agroforestryso good why does it need a grant’)

– Effects ‘cadastral’ and local tax status of land

Obstacles perceived by Officials

• Officials are also reluctant because:

– Agroforestry falls between agriculture, forestry and environment departments.

• Agriculture Department wants to hang on to agricultural land.

• Forestry Department doesn’t believe its possible to grow good quality timber at wide spacing

• Environment Department doesn’t like regimented rows, intensive management and control of weeds.

Obstacles perceived by Officials

• Officials are finally reluctant because:

– Perception that EU doesn’t allow it !!

(e.g. ‘EU insists that afforestation grants must reduce agriculturalsurpluses’)

BUT officials are becoming interested in agroforestry now that it is specifically mentioned

in the draft Rural Development Regulation for 2007-2013.

Obstacles to Agroforestry adoption for the farmer

• 1. Technical uncertainties– Uncertainties over management, time consumption and yield

– Likely damage to field drains

– Perception of increased pest problems

– Incompatibility with machinery & potential tree-damage

– Little knowledge of timber markets

– Possible lower timber quality

– Trees owned by landlord and not tenants

The SAFE project contributed to answering some of these issues.

More research is needed on someaspects

Farmers reluctant because of:

Obstacles to agroforestry adoption for the farmer

• 2. Regulation disincentives

– Low or no subsidies following 1257/99 (no or lower arable

area payments, no or pro-rata reduced planting grants, no

income support payments, ineligible for agri-environmental

payments)

– Classification as permanent forest land (lower tax but lower

land value & irreversible planning control)

– Time and bureaucracy for grant application process

– Scepticism of professionals and advisors

Farmers also reluctant because of:

.. Thus … RURAL TREES have been treated as ‘aliens’ by the CAP …

.. Leading to the loss of wooded landscapes over much of europe …

.. but some farmers have maintained agroforestry systems ...

.. and others have established plantations recently …. How can they be encouraged?

.. Particularly since there is a cultural and environmental preference for the environments created by mature trees in farm landscapes …

SAFE Policy proposals

The new CAP shouldadopt a positive

approach to encouraging the

presence of treesoutside the forest

• Rural trees should no longer be treated as aliens, which have negative effects for farmers whomanage them (isolated trees, tree hedges, lowdensity tree stands)

Issue n° 1 : Is agroforestry eligible for the Pillar I Single Payment Scheme?

• Regulation 1782/03 introducing the move to the ‘decoupled’ Single Payment Scheme (SPS) indicates that ‘woods’ (Article 43) and ‘forests’ (Article 44) are ineligible for the SPS.

• But confusion exists because the Regulation does not define either ‘woods’ or ‘forests’.

• Already there are examples of farmers removing trees from farmland (e.g. traditional orchards in England, hedges in Poland or dehesa systems in Spain) because they fear the loss of SPS payments.

• Guidance Document AGRI-2254-2003 recommends that the threshold of 'woodland' is > 50 stems per ha, but does allow countries to define exceptions in the case of ‘mixed-cropping’.

– “In accordance with Article 5(1)(a) of Regulation (EC) No 2419/2001, areas of trees – particularly trees with a potential use only for wood production –inside an agricultural parcel with density of more than 50 trees/ha should, as a general rule, be considered as ineligible. Exceptions may be envisaged for tree classes of mixed cropping such as for orchards and for ecological/environmental reasons. Eventual exceptions must be defined beforehand by the Member States.”

• We propose replacing ‘tree classes of mixed-cropping’ with ‘agroforestry systems’ and include a simple definition of agroforestry.

Issue n° 2 : how to define agroforestryin the context of the Pillar I SPS?

Issue n°3 : GAEC and agroforestry• Farmers obtaining the Pillar I

SPS are obliged to demonstrate that they maintain the farm in ‘Good Agricultural and Environmental Condition' (GAEC). Annex IV of Regulation 1782/03 gives one GAEC condition as ‘avoiding encroachment of unwanted vegetation on agricultural land'.

• EU countries differ in their definition of GAEC but it should be clear at the EU level that well managed Agroforestry Systems fulfils GAEC requirements

Issue n°4 : Maintenance costs of new agroforestry plantations (Pillar II)

• The draft Rural DevelopmentRegulation includes support for new planting of agroforestry (Article 41) but NOT the 5-year maintenance element received by conventional plantations– However, maintenance during the 5 first

years of a low density tree stand are crucial for the success of the plantation.

– Tree protection, weed control, and stem pruning are essential

Issue n°5 : Agri-Environment support for AF (Pillar II)

• Existing Agroforestrysystems can bemanaged to maximise environmentalbenefits. Thesetraditionalmanagement costscould be included as an option within theagri-environmentalmeasures proposed by the draft RDR

Issue n°6 : Nut trees and agroforestry (Reg 2237)

• Regulation 2237/03 Chapter 5 sets levels and conditions for subsidies to nut plantations.

• It sets minimum densities (125/ha for hazelnuts, 50/ha for almonds, 50/ha for walnuts, 50/ha for pistachios, 30/ha for locust beans) but indicates that payments to nut trees orchards will NOT be made if these are intercropped.

• This condition is reflected in national legislation, but is an unreasonable condition provided that SPS is not claimed.

Walnut and maize, France

Walnut and lavanda, France

• The 1998 EU Forest Strategy emphasised Agroforestryin the context of:

– ‘sustainable and multifunctional management of forests … including optimisation of agroforestrysystems’ (p15);

– research to concentrate on ‘… diversification (non-wood uses, agro-sylvo-pastoral systems)’..(p16);

– maintenance of traditional management of silvo-pastoral systems with high levels of biodiversitywhich may be lost of these areas area abandoned (p23);

– the importance of agroforestry for carbon sequestration (p23)

• Yet agroforestry is hardly mentioned in national forestry strategies, or current EU or national rural development strategies, or in the recent publication on ‘Sustainable Forestry and the European Union’.

Issue n°7 : agroforestry in the EU Forest Strategy

Leading to the SAFE Policy Proposals …

• That the technical issues have been partially solved, showingthat trees and crops/pasturescan be complementary.

• That the benefits of rural trees are now demonstrated.

• That the two pillars of theCAP have contradictoryeffects on trees outside theforest.

• The SAFE project suggests:

Taking into account

Policy Proposal I: a clear definition of ‘agroforestry’ should be included in EU

Regulations• We suggest a definition that would include isolated trees, tree-

hedges and low-density tree stands, which clearly distinguishes between agroforestry and forestry.

•Member states could define specific thresholds

for some traditional systems if required.

Agroforestry systems refer to an agriculture land use system in which high-stem trees are grown in combination with agricultural commodities on the same plot.

The tree component of agroforestry systems can be isolated trees, tree-hedges, and low-density tree stands. An agroforestry plot is defined by two

characteristics:a) at least 50% of the area of the plot is in crop or pasture production,

b) tree density is less than 200/ha (of stemsgreater than 15 cm in diameter at 1.3 meter height), including boundary trees.

SAFE Policy Proposal 2..• This proposal

– is compatible with existing Regulations– removes the contradiction between the two pillars of the

CAP on rural trees (farmers will no longer be stimulated to remove trees to get CAP payments)

– simplifies controls, and therefore saves a lot of Europeanmoney

The total area of an agroforestry parcel should beeligible for the Single Payment Scheme

SAFE Policy Proposal 3.

• The draft RDR for 2008-2013 includes a welcome and innovative Article 41 that introduces support for the establishment of new agroforestry systems. It could be supplemented:– to include maintenance costs for agroforestry planting in the

same way as in Article 40 for forest plantations;– to support the eligibility of existing agroforestry systems for

improvement and environmental payments.

An existing (2001) French agroforestryenvironmental regulationcould serve as a model

Agroforestry systems should be backed by the Rural Development Regulation (RDR, CAP second

pillar)

SAFE Policy Proposal 4.

The EU Action Plan for Sustainable Forest Management (2006) should emphasise the need

to maintain or increase the presence of scattered trees in farmed landscapes

(agroforestry)

• The 1998 EU Forest Strategy refers to agroforestry several times, but it was not mentioned in the Commissions recent review of implementation of the Strategy. This omission could be corrected in:– the proposed Action Plan for Sustainable

Forest Management (2006),– The EU Rural Development Policy

Document (2006), and

A word on validation methods …

Agri-environmental Aids

Agricultural AidsForestry Aids

This is the French system from 2001, but there is a need to simplify …

…and avoid going to the extreme of the Olive Register ….

Where 760 million individual olive trees

have been identified at a cost of €100 million+

Using orthophotoswhich can cause major errors when estimating

tree crown cover

..and find a method which farmers themselves can monitor …

Pillar I SPS Aids (if <200 trees & GAEC)

Pillar II Article 41 Agroforestry Establishment Aid

.. At least until the INSPIRE Regulation allows improved methods of LPIS from 2013 …

• Since Satellite photos (e.g. IKONOS, EARLYBIRD) are accurate to below 1 m resolution & don’t have parallax problems

• Since the INSPIRE Project will introduce a harmonised Land Parcel Identification System

• Since automated tree counting methods are becoming available.

• Where mechanisation, aids for removal of trees and agricultural specialisation have created no-trees-lands where previouslythere were scattered trees …

• Where Agroforestry Systems have practically disappeared –except in Mediterranean regions ….

• Where biological and landscape diversity are ignored and whereland is either more intensively used or else abandoned …

• Where opportunities for diversifation an environmentalenhancement are lost because of ill-judged subsidies …

CONCLUSION: Is this the future we want for all agricultural areas in Europe…

… or is it better to opt for Agroforestry ?

• Where trees provide shelter for animals, erosion control, nitrate leaching control, fire control, landscape diversity, biologicaldiversity, C sequestration and maintain traditional farmedlandscapes.

• Where biophysical models show that silvoarable systems can in manycircumstances increase the total productivity of crop and treescomponents.

• Where economic models show that – given a ‘level playing field’ for subsidies- agroforestry is very often the most profitable option.

• Where flexible approaches to policy issues such as grant eligibility, cadastral classification and tenants rights can encourage farmers to experiment with a wide variety of systems.

CONCLUSIONS: European land-use is at a crossroads

• 1. France has led the way agroforestry experiments and legislation, but this is threatened unless the Single Payment Scheme is extended to new and existing agroforestry systems (streu-obst, dehesa, montados, prés-vergers, parklands, hedgerows, timber belts etc)

• 2. Article 41 of the new RDR offers a great opportunity for agroforestry, but maintenance payments are lacking, and officials in EU states need to be less bureaucratic and be more aware of the potential of scattered trees to integrate with agriculture whilst producing quality-timber.

• 3. The 2006 EU Sustainable Forestry Action Plan offers an opportunity to stress the importance of trees outside the forest.